A bit unfair to the commenters in question? Perhaps, but let’s look at this from a case by case basis.

In the first example, there are various things that can make someone heroic. To imply that someone can only be heroic if they’re serving in the military is to wholly ignore the history of the United States. Heroes come in various shapes and sizes and do things to varying degrees that can affect change and inspire others. To say that any person is not heroic because they are not in the United States military is nothing more than shallow pandering and does not negate the actions of someone who’s not a soldier.

In the second example, various people (mostly people who run e-cig forums that sell the damn things – in hindsight I’m not sure why I didn’t just trash them) made the claim that the ONLY way they are able to quit smoking is through the use of E-cigs. As in, it’s either smoke or use e-cigs, but nothing in-between. As I pointed out, that’s bollocks.

In the third example – again involving smoking – a commenter implied that American non-smokers basically don’t have the right to discuss the issue of smoking because there are other unhealthy practices, particularly with food. The argument is a borderline non-sequitur, but I’ve read it many, many times before.

All three are examples of false equivalency: a logical fallacy wherein someone debates and/or attempts to negate a point by drawing a parallel to a completely unrelated point.

I don’t blame the individuals who posit these arguments so much as the general tone of the internet and television punditry. When relating a point to a person, the easiest thing to do is to put it in terms they’ll understand, and the easiest way to do this is to draw a comparison to something you know a person is familiar with and will evoke an immediate reaction.

Problem is, the need to pathologically dissect complex points and discussions into brief, entertaining snippets lends itself to anywhere from incomplete to wildly inaccurate comparisons. To wit: any concerns raised on e-cigarettes is moot because the alternative is smoking real cigarettes, a person’s not a hero because she does not wear a military uniform and carry a gun, and people can’t complain about the smokers in the apartment next door stinking up their apartment because Americans eat too much pizza.

This sort of thing is exactly why you see so many comment sections here at the Times Union and elsewhere go completely off the rails of the original point of the post and/or the discussion at hand.

My suggestion? Stop and think. If you don’t agree with something, start from the point itself. Argue what the author is saying. For example (even though I’m only about 75% convinced): e-cigarettes aren’t dangerous because the actual chemicals contained therein and the “smoke” they emit are harmless to the individual inhaling the chemicals and to others.

Then – here’s the important part – stop. Leave it there. Don’t then say “otherwise, if people don’t smoke e-cigarettes they will DIE.” Not true. Plenty of people have and continue to quit smoking using various other methods.

So the next time you’re trying to make a point and draw a shaky comparison, don’t get frustrated with the response or lack thereof. Rather, sit back and think to yourself “wait, is there really any correlation between the demolition of Troy’s City Hall and genocide?”

If the answer’s no, then there’s probably a better way to express your point. In fact, you probably already did, but it’s going to be completely wiped out once you keep going and draw that false equivalency that completely negates any faith people have in your ability to provide a reasonable counterpoint.

Otherwise, instead of making a point, you become the Adolf Hitler of the comments section. And nobody likes an Adolf Hitler.